Jharkhand High Court
S.H.Pharmaceuticals Limited Th vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 26 November, 2009
Author: Sushil Harkauli
Bench: Sushil Harkauli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 2000 of 2009
S.H. Pharmaceuticals Limited through its Director
M. Sudhakar, Hyderabad(Andhra Pradesh)...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aparesh Kr. Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. J.C. to G.P.I
------
02/26.11.2009I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is the Management, which has challenged the impugned award of the Labour Court, Deoghar directing reinstatement of the dismissed employee of the petitioner with full back wages.
I have gone through the impugned award of the Labour Court, Deoghar and I do not find any good ground to disagree with the reasoning therein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Labour Court closing the evidence of the petitioner, and submits that because of such closure the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of producing the alternative witness, in place of original witness of the petitioner who had failed to turn-up. However, it has not been shown as to what crucial evidence was expected of the witness intended to be produced by the petitioner and for which dates were given by the Labour Court several times to the Management.
In absence of showing any crucial issue on which the intended witness was expected to depose, the argument becomes merely technical in nature. From the record, I find that opportunities were given to the petitioner-Management to produce their witness, which the petitioner failed to avail.
It has next been argued from the petitioner's side that the Labour Court has granted full back wages to the workman merely upon a bald statement on his part that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere after the termination of his service. Even in the present writ petition, there is not even a whisper on the part of the petitioner-Management naming any other place or establishment where the workman was actually employed during 2. this period. Therefore this submission is also without substance. If some alternative establishment had been mentioned in the pleadings of the writ petition, perhaps a counter affidavit may have been called from the workman asking for specific admission or denial but as the writ petition stands, this argument also becomes merely technical in nature.
Reliance has been placed upon the provisions of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of service) Act, 1976 and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.R. Adyanthaya & Others Vrs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 737, it has been argued that in view of the aforesaid Act, the Industrial Disputes Act would not apply.
The argument does not take into account that the decision of the Supreme Court is in respect of a date prior to the 1987 amendment of the said 1976 Act.
In the circumstances, it is not a fit case which would call for any interference with the impugned award of the Labour Court, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under 226 of the Constitution of India.
This writ petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.) Sudhir/